Delhi HC raps Wipro for defamatory firing letter, awards ₹2 lakh in damages

Delhi High Court said Wipro's termination letter used 'unsubstantiated, harmful' terms like 'malicious conduct'; directs firm to reissue letter, awards ₹2 lakh to ex-employee for reputational damage

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of a former Wipro employee, directing the company to issue a fresh termination letter without any defamatory content. The court also ordered Wipro to pay ₹2 lakh as compensatory damages for causing emotional distress and damaging the employee’s professional image, Live Law reported.

 

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said, “A fresh termination letter shall be issued to the plaintiff devoid of any defamatory content, and consequently, the impugned termination letter shall cease to be of any effect insofar as the defamatory content is concerned.”

 

The court found that the original termination letter used unsubstantiated and harmful language, which amounted to actionable defamation. The letter had used phrases like “malicious conduct” and “complete loss of trust”, the news report said.     

 

 

Remarks found to be unfounded, harmful

 

The employee had filed a defamation suit against Wipro, seeking ₹2 crore in damages and a clean discharge letter. He argued that the comments in the termination letter were baseless and contradicted his positive performance reviews and internal feedback.

 

The court agreed, saying the employee had shown a “clear mismatch” between the termination remarks and the records of his past work. It said, “The remarks, couched in the use of the term ‘malicious conduct’, not only lacked substantiation but also had a direct and deleterious impact on the future employability and professional dignity of the employee.”

 

Wipro, the court added, failed to establish any valid defence for the allegations made in the termination letter.

 

Court cites ‘compelled self-publication’ doctrine

 

Referring to US legal principles, the court invoked the doctrine of compelled self-publication, the news report said. This doctrine holds that if someone is forced to share defamatory content — like a termination letter — during future job applications, the originator of the remarks (in this case, the employer) can be held liable.

 

Justice Kaurav said, “An employer who, by internal mandate or statutory compulsion, obliges a former employee to reveal the reason for termination cannot exonerate itself from liability for every foreseeable instance of that compelled disclosure and the reputational injury it occasions.”

 

The court further said that defamation does not require direct public circulation if harm is a foreseeable result. “The law eschews a narrow, formalistic view of communication in favour of a pragmatic and substance-oriented approach,” it said, as quoted by the news report.

 

Concluding the case, the judge said that the law must protect individuals from baseless allegations that harm their career.